Regulation - Food Australia

R
REGULATION
REVISED FOOD STANDARDS CODE
On 1 March 2016, a revised Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code will come into place.
What will change and what does it mean to you?
Words by Peter May
The revised Australia New Zealand
Food Standards Code (the Code)
will replace the existing set of food
standards that food businesses are
required to comply with under state
and territory laws.
The last revision of the Code was in
2001, when the joint Australia-New
Zealand food regulatory system was
established, and it made significant
changes to the regulation of food in
both countries. In contrast, the current
revision does not change regulatory
requirements, but provides a more
accessible and effective set of standards
by removing uncertainties that exist in
the current Code.
The origins of the 2016 revision are
in a New South Wales court case, in
which a food business was prosecuted
for failing to comply with requirements
in the Code, relating to the labelling
and composition of a food. In 2009, the
Supreme Court of New South Wales
delivered a judgement, in which the
presiding judge commented on the legal
effectiveness of the Code. In response,
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
(FSANZ) commissioned a review to
identify areas in which the Code could
be improved to ensure its effectiveness
as a legal instrument.
Proposal 1025 (P1025) was initiated
by FSANZ after extensive consultation
with stakeholders in state and territory
enforcement agencies and relevant
Commonwealth departments in
both Australia and New Zealand.
The proposal process involved wide
consultation with industry and regulatory
bodies to ensure that any changes that
were made to the Code were not only
necessary, but also valuable.
THE FOOD STANDARDS CODE
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) is developed and
administered by FSANZ and regulates the use of ingredients, processing aids,
colourings, additives, vitamins and minerals. It also covers the composition of
some foods, such as dairy, meat and beverages, as well as standards developed
by new technologies, such as genetically modified foods.
Additionally, the Code is responsible for some labelling requirements
for packaged and unpackaged food, such as specific mandatory warnings
or advisory labels. The Code protects consumers through its food safety
requirements, as well as through the restrictions it places on claims that can
be made about the health benefits of food (health claims).
The Code is enforced in Australia by state and territory authorities, the
Commonwealth Department of Agriculture for imported food and the Ministry
for Primary Industries in New Zealand. One of the reasons for revising the
Code, and a key goal for P1025, was to ensure it was more closely aligned with
the food laws of the Australian and New Zealand governments and Australian
states and territories, which rely on requirements to be clearly stated so they can
be enforced effectively. The changes aimed to reduce uncertainty when it came
to code enforcement issues and ensure that the Code remained a suitable and
effective resource of food regulation.
While P1025 aimed to modernise
the Code, it sought to do this without
changing its intent and without causing
major disruption for industry and other
key stakeholders. So, while there was
no transition period for the revised
Code, stakeholders should not be
concerned as the revisions have not
changed the intent of the Code—which
is to protect public health and safety
and ensure that Australia and New
Zealand have a safe food supply. In
addition, much of the Code’s overall
structure has been retained.
The bulk of the changes to the Code
are confined to chapters one and two,
which provide both general and specific
standards for food for sale. The food
safety and primary production and
processing standards have not been
revised. During consultation with
industry, a strong preference was made
clear that current standard numbers
should be retained and in response,
much of the current Code’s structure
has also been kept.
The changes that have been made
include updating the wording to
clarify key areas such as:
•Who needs to comply with the
Code’s requirements
•Provisions relating to food additives,
processing aids and nutritive
substances
•Food composition requirements (i.e.
you can’t call something jam if it
has less than 400 grams of fruit per
kilogram of the final product).
Work on P1025 has also resulted
in a comprehensive dictionary of
FOOD AUSTRALIA 27
defined terms being included for the
first time, to help users navigate the
Code more easily.
FSANZ approved the proposed
Code revisions in December 2014.
Shortly after, the ministers that make
up the Australia and New Zealand
Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation
(the Forum) were notified of FSANZ’s
decision and early in February 2015,
FSANZ was informed that ministers
did not seek a review.
As a result, the revised Code was
gazetted and published on 10 April
2015 and is available to view on
FSANZ’s website (www.foodstandards.
gov.au). In addition to publishing
the Code, FSANZ has provided tools
to help current users of the Code
identify how the current provisions are
translated to the revised Code.
The new Code will be revised
during 2015 to incorporate variations
to the current Code made during the
proposal process and which continue
to be made (until the new Code comes
into effect), and to correct minor errors.
The purpose of these revisions is to
ensure the revised Code accurately
reflects the current code when it
commences in 2016.
It is hoped that industry, other key
stakeholders or anyone with an interest
in the Code will take the time to not
only review the revised Code, but also
use the resources produced by FSANZ,
which aim to make the transition as
easy as possible. It is also hoped that
everyone who uses the Code will
benefit from a clearer, easier-to-follow,
and in-turn, easier-to-enforce Food
Standards Code.
For more information on the Code,
visit www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/
code-revision
Peter May is general manager of Legal
and Regulatory Affairs at Food Standards
Australia New Zealand.
SERVING SIZE AND PACKAGING CUES:
MIXED MESSAGES?
Serving size is one of the last areas of food labelling where the food business can exercise
some discretion under the Food Standards Code, but is this discretion being exercised wisely?
Words by Carla Degenhardt
Food labelling in Australia is subject
to extensive regulation. The intricate
requirements set out in the Australia
New Zealand Food Standards Code and
the Trade Measurements Act, reflect the
political interest and involvement in
food regulation and policy.
The constraints of prescriptive
regulation do not, however, lessen
the overarching obligation on
manufacturers to ensure that their
packaging and labelling complies with
the Australian Consumer Law and are
not false, misleading or deceptive.
The Food Standards Code requires
that nutrition information panels be
included on the labels of packaged
goods, with few exceptions. The
formatting and content of the panel
are described in detail, including the
requirement that it includes the number
of servings of the food in the package,
and the nutrition profile on a ‘per
serving’ basis, as well as per 100ml
(for liquids) or 100g (for solid or semisolid food).
28 FOOD AUSTRALIA
The standard allows for the
substitution of the word ‘serving’ with
‘slice, pack or package’ or ‘metric cup/
metric tablespoon’ or other appropriate
word or words expressing a unit or
common measure.
The Code is otherwise silent as to
how ‘a serving’ is to be determined,
leaving that as a discretionary measure
for manufacturers. This article will
examine some examples of how
sample size is being applied and
whether consumers are getting useful
information or mixed messages.
Serving suggestion
and serving size
Attractive depiction of a packaged
food product served and ready to eat
has long been a part of food packaging,
as has the ubiquitous disclaimer
‘serving suggestion’. However, the
‘serving’ depicted is sometimes
vastly different to the ‘per serving’
stated quantity on the nutrition
information panel.
The risk for manufacturers is
ensuring that there is no inappropriate
suggestion to consumers that a full
bowl (as pictured) has an energy
and nutrition profile ‘per serve’ (as
listed). It is debatable whether such
conduct could ever rise to the level
of misleading or deceptive conduct
under the Australian Consumer Law,
though consistent variation between
the depiction of a serve and a stated
serve might invite regulatory attention
or intervention.
Physical product and
serving size?
It is not too difficult to find items on
supermarket shelves that cite ‘fractional’
servings, a consequence of nominating
a serving size that is not a factor of the
total product weight or volume – for
example, a 120g packet of sweets with
a nominated serving size of 25g (4.8
servings per pack), or a 420g pouch of
soup with a nominated serving size of
250g (1.7 servings per pack).
Having a serving size that is incompatible with the
presentation of the product may pose reputational risk.
Consider Toblerone, the recipient of a Choice magazine
“Shonky” award in 2012 for an incompatible serving size
and product configuration. Toblerone packaging provides
information for a 25g serving size across its product range.
The distinctive ‘mountain’ portions of a Toblerone chocolate
bar are, however, largely not factors of 25g. A 400g Toblerone
chocolate bar is stated to contain 16 servings, although it
has 15 segments. As a consequence, the nutritional profile of
the nominated ‘serve’ is around seven per cent lower than
each piece of chocolate in the bar. While the reporting of this
situation was lighthearted, it invites unflattering commentary
which a manufacturer might wish to avoid.
Physical packaging
and serving size
Soft drink manufacturers often adopt fluctuating serving
sizes which reflects the way the product is most likely to be
consumed – i.e. whether the product is presented for a single
person or multiple person consumption. For instance, a serve
may be 375ml for a can or 600ml for a single serve bottle,
or multiple 250ml serves in larger format bottles. Adapting
the serving size in this way is providing more meaningful
information to a consumer than maintaining a single set
serving size across different volume products.
Serving size and other
product claims
Serving size has long been relevant to certain claims about
a product. For example, a particular serving size might be
selected to enable a claim to be made such as “half your daily
iron requirements in one serve”.
With increasing recent focus on promoting the
recommended five daily serves of vegetables, some products
have claims regarding the vegetable content such as “x serves
of vegetables per pack”. The challenge in making ‘per pack’
claims is where the nutrition information panel indicates that
the pack has more than one serving. Making ‘per pack’ claims
when otherwise claiming multiple serves per pack could be
confusing and open to criticism.
Serving size parity
What about setting a serving size that favourably compares
to a competing product on a ‘per serving’ basis?
Consider two competing snack foods that are identically
shaped and sized (one private brand, one home brand)
which each adopt front-of-pack nutritional information
on a per serve basis. The private brand snack food is less
calorific than the home brand product, but the private brand
nominates each pack to have 25g servings compared to the
home brand’s 20g servings. However, in reality, the private
brand product is, say, five per cent less calorific; the different
serving sizes on the front-of-pack information suggests that
the private brand is 120 per cent more calorific. A consumer
making a quick visual comparison of the products may be
influenced to select the home brand product as it appears,
from the front of the pack at least, to be less energy dense
despite that not being the case.
This is likely best addressed by manufacturers on a case-bycase basis, depending on the nature of the competitive forces at
play between different products. That is, how great a risk the
competing product is perceived to be, and whether adapting
consistent serving sizes (in this scenario, by the private brand)
would have any material impact on sales.
Best practice
Looking at these scenarios, it is not hard to see that
consumers might sometimes be baffled by ‘serving size’ and
consequentially make poor choices. A consistent focus on
providing meaningful and clear information to consumers
about how much of a particular food should be consumed
will result in best practice. This could be as simple as going
beyond the basic regulatory requirements to provide context
as well as weight or volume to describe a serving size – for
example, 15g (two biscuits) or 30g (half a cup).
Otherwise, it will be interesting to see whether these sorts
of challenges regarding serving size nomination continue, or
change if the Health Star Rating is broadly adopted.
Regardless, in the current political and regulatory
environment, it is in the interest of food manufacturers to
ensure serving sizes are contextually appropriate to avoid
legal, reputational or commercial challenges at a product
level, or even more regulation at an industry level. R
Carla Degenhardt is special counsel at Watermark Intellectual
Asset Management.
FOOD AUSTRALIA 29